Pages

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Clarkoholics

"I didn't think it was possible, but I think we've hit a whole new low.

Manata compared Gordon Clark to a meth dealer complete with myself and Dr. Robbins as his pushers.

I guess people can start calling me Sean "The Pusher" Gerety and can simply refer to Dr. Robbins as 'Scarface.'"

By way of reply:

1) Notice how he's always so complimentary towards Dr. Robbins.

2) Who is "we?" Hardly anyone is a Scripturalist. Last count there were 12, I think. And, most people will have a hard time sympathizing with a Scripturalist who thinks he's been verbally assaulted. I mean, don't most people cheer when bullies get their comeuppances.

3) Gerety seeks to totally avoid dealing with the substance of the post. Instead, he tries to gain the sympathy vote. Appeals to pity.

4) I compared myself to a meth dealer, since I was one. I said the drug he was pushing was "Scripturalism."

5) Gerety doesn't take into account the disclaimer I built into the post. Quoting myself:

"But first, a word about the drug use rhetoric. First, I do happen to think that Scripturalism is dangerous for your epistemic and spiritual health. However, my linking it to drugs is just for rhetorical purposes. It’s intended to bring a bit of humor to otherwise boring philosophical debates. Second, some may say it is fallacious. Guilt by association. Poisoning the well. Well, I have already covered why I have employed drug abuse terminology, and I base no argumentative weight on styling the debate in this fashion other than it serves to make an important point by colorful metaphor. But more importantly, the above listed fallacies are not included in SC and therefore the Scripturalists do not know that I’m arguing fallaciously, and thus shouldn’t get upset at what they opine that I am doing."

6) Gerety doesn't understand metaphors and analogies. Of course I don't think those guys are really dealing illegal substances, but they are dealing something. Gerety is well known for "pushing" Clark. I actually think Scripturalism has bad epistemic effects, a sort of cognitive rot. This is also analogous.

7) Notice more similarities, I attack Gerety's "precious" and he responds back by irrationally trying to gain pity for himself rather than deal with reality. When a drug users drug is taken away, or attacked, or, more appropriately, his stash is flushed down the toilet, they frequently have irrational conniption fits. I actually can recall back in '96 when I roid raged on my brother for not wanting to inject Deca in my rear! So, there's some analogy here.

8) Reiterating: The point of the metaphor was apropos, I think. Drugs that are cut with battery acid are impure. Scripturalism cuts its drug (i.e., it's specific view of epistemology) with what they would refer to as battery acid (i.e., opinions, assumptions, extra-biblical appeals, etc.,). There conclusions are more certain that their premises, and I recall Clark harping on this in Thales to Dewey (cf. his section on Aristotle, I'm too lazy to cite the page number).

9) So, rather than throwing a temper tantrum, appealing to pity, avoiding the argument, perhaps Gerety would actually like to engage the argument(s)?

10) It's sad to see a grown man running and "telling" on other people. Appealing to schoolyard tactics. Trying to get the most kids on his side. Watch out, mess with Gerety's "precious," and here comes the rumor mill. Attempting to destroy a reputation is so much easier than destroying an argument; especially when, as Christians, we have no reputation to speak of anyway.

Basically, Scripturalism is the philosophy where anything not in the Bible, or directly deducible from what is in the Bible, is unjustified opinion at best.

e.g. Your existence.Your assurance.Scripturalism itself.

See the conversation on p24-29 here, and also here. The Scripturalist grinds their interlocuter down with constant questioning until they're left unable to provide reasons for their beliefs.

Then, instead of how a Van Tillian would respond (by saying that a Christian has warrant for their beliefs because they believe that they've been placed by a personal Creator into an environment conducive to forming true beliefs, with cognitive faculties aimed at producing true beliefs, and have the infallible Scripture from a God who cannot lie to explain this to them) the Scripturalist suggests that sense experience and reason cannot be trusted at all, and we can ONLY know things that can be worked out by strict syllogisms deducible from Scripture by 'good and necessary consequence.

The problem is that it is impossible to read Scripture if you don't trust your senses. So, Cheung answers this by saying that God *beams* the Bible straight into your mind when you look at it.

Why don't we all just read the original greek and hebrew? After all, those are just "arbitrary scribbles on a page," and so why doesn't God just beam the meaning into our noggins while reading arbitrary greek scribbles over against english ones? Seems a bit silly to make us go through all that effort of translating scribbles just so God can do the exact same thing he did with other scribbles. A scribble is a scribble.

"Seems a bit silly to make us go through all that effort of translating scribbles just so God can do the exact same thing he did with other scribbles. A scribble is a scribble." - Paul Manta

Paul,

Regardless of which side of the debate you fall on this is faulty logic. It may "seem" silly for God to use people like us to spread the gospel when he could just make His elect believe at will. But he uses us nonetheless, no matter how foolish it may seem. On the same token God may have set up a system where it does depends on what scribbles you look at in order to receive knowledge. Who are you to call that silly? That may or may not be the case. (I haven’t made up my mind up on the whole debate)

You argument isn’t much removed the "If God exists then why doesn't he do it this way..." type of argument. I would suggest less sarcasm and more reverence when it comes to the things of God.

I am actually leaning the other way. I haven’t been convinced that one can support occasionalism from scripture. I did enjoy the mp3 (from the narrow mind blog) of you arguing with the guy from the earth day fair.

Is there a blog entry that describes your approach to apologetics? I would be interested in reading up on that.

I don't think *occasionalism* is part and parcel with *Scripturalism.* So, one could be a Scripturalist without being an occasionalist. Perhaps one could have some sort of kantian categores, or Plato's remembering, going on in his view of how we understand the propositions in Scripture.

I don't think I've ever posted on my method. I have no problem being classified as a Van Tillian presuppositionalist. But, there's much leeway there. I don't have to be pigeon holed into much specific views on warrant, justification, sense perception (e.g., direct/indrect realism), etc.

The problem is that it is impossible to read Scripture if you don't trust your senses. So, Cheung answers this by saying that God *beams* the Bible straight into your mind when you look at it.

>>Yup, and I might add that in the 20th century, we called that "Neo-Orthodoxy." All Robbins, Cheung, and the rest have done is substitute one form of metaphysical encounter with another. In Neo-Orthodoxy, the Bible "becomes" the Word of God by way of an "encounter" when you read it. Beaming the Bible straight into your mind really doesn't differ very much.

I might add that this is also a recipe for hyper-Calvinism. If God beams the Bible directly into your mind, then there's a good reason to drop secondary causality. That's a hyper-Calvinist move.